Pajamas Media

90 Comments

1. Jane:

Romney turned Olympic from millions of lost to $100 million profit. That’s not just saying. That is the results!
Search youtube about McCain, you would find a lot of damaging videos including POW records. Nobody is perfect. I am looking at the person who is best for our country right now.

Romney’s lost is due to the Washington style dirty political tricks. First in Florida to layout wrong charge before election. If McCain and Huckabee are coordinating, it should be unlawful. Since the election is not supposed to be two candidates coordinating against one candidate.

After Huckabee’s Iowa win, Huckabee told McCain, “Now it’s your turn to kick Romney’s ass”

Before Huckabee’s surprising turnaround at the convention, McCain delegates told FOX News they had been instructed by the campaign to throw their support to Huckabee.

If this is the way politics works, then next time any candidates could send a few more of their sorogates as candidates to meddle their way to victory. McCain and Huckabee are complete disgrace and dishonest. If they are nominee, they will never be a president, because democrats can play dirty tricks with more intelligence than these two loosers.

Feb 6, 2008 - 11:59 am 2. John:

The question is thus:

Is it better for the Republican Party to spend eight years fighting the leftist agenda imposed by a Democrat or by John McCain?

Because with McCain doing Ted Kennedy’s bidding under the Republican banner, it’s harder to oppose.

Feb 6, 2008 - 12:14 pm 3. RWillis:

McCain has impeccable credentials? Roger, you and I are apparently not evaluating the same guy.

The (R) behind his name doesn’t mean he’s a republican, any more than Obama claiming to be a moderate makes him so. If I have to vote for a Democrat anyway, it might as well be a known quotient.

On the other hand, I am a conservative. I’ll write in “Fred”.

Feb 6, 2008 - 12:18 pm 4. Hotpatch 6:

John McCain is an ill tempered, foul mouthed and nasty little man who is too old, too sick, and too unstable to run this country. We elect him at great risk.

Feb 6, 2008 - 12:20 pm 5. Heroic Dreamer:

Maybe you are not aware of this but Rush Limbaugh is not running for POTUS. Why should he compromise his conservative views to suit the McCain candidacy? Why would he “reconcile?”

The conservative voter can decide for him/herself regarding the desirability of the proposed candidates.

Meanwhile, conservatives like Rush will continue to excercise their rights to free speech.

Feb 6, 2008 - 12:24 pm 6. AndyJ:

McCain is NOT trustworthy.
He blows with the strongest wind and he never ever sails into adversity…

Against Obama he is slow, old and sad. Against Clinton he is her father or grandfather who needs a nap.

McCain lacks the ability to stand up in a debate and present his ideas… Being strong on war is not the same as winning a war… Hillary is more likely to be the strongest on war…

McCain is just ANOTHER OLD REPUBLICAN whose taking his turn…

Feb 6, 2008 - 12:25 pm 7. McCainiac:

If the Republican party is only a big tent coalition as long as the hard right gets its way, then every libertarian-minded Republican voter has been played for a chump.

I voted for Bush twice, even though I never liked him. I voted for Dick Mountjoy, whose hand I would not shake if offered it. I voted for Bill Jones. If you want to sell out McCain because he doesn’t hate Mexicans enough, so be it, but don’t come looking for me when you want a broad coalition to stop gay marriage. If we’re not all in this together, that goes both ways.

Feb 6, 2008 - 12:31 pm 8. RE:

Conservatives HAVE learned something from McCain. Actually, they’ve learned much over the years. That’s precisely why they are so loathe to support him. Conservatives are well aware that their concerns and passions will be dismissed the moment their vote is secured.

Feb 6, 2008 - 12:31 pm 9. gregh:

I have no idea what you are talking about.
The anti-amnesty people, who as far as I could tell constituted the bulk of the populace, are upset about the rewarding of what they see as a thumb-in-the-eye towards the rule of law in this country. McCain views them as bigots. So…they’re supposed to meet McCain half way and say, ok we’re kinda bigots?
I guess all of the entrepreneurs in the country should go to McCain and acknowledge that they’re just greedy slimeballs (sortof).
For myself, McCain-Feingold is an affront to our civil liberties. I guess I need to adjust my position and ask his forgiveness (60 days before the election, of course! Don’t want to end up fined or imprisoned).

Feb 6, 2008 - 12:47 pm 10. Peter:

I have no problem with McCain reaching out to Democrats. Of course I might be able to support him if he’d only reached out to Republicans once in a while.

Feb 6, 2008 - 12:47 pm 11. Jessica:

Is it true that mccain was actually born in panama? If this is true, he cannot hold the highest office in this country.
I am a Ron Paul supporter and I will write him in. I don’t believe in “taking the lesser of two evils.”

Feb 6, 2008 - 12:48 pm 12. Vic:

Here we go again with the name calling. We are purists for not sucking it up and voting McCain and party like good little lemmings should. Last year we were bigots and racists for not supporting his amnesty bill. If you want to win us over to McCain’s side then you better stop with the hissy fits and give us some solid arguments.

If you need some help, and it looks like many of you really do need the help, start by challenging the points made by Andy McCarthy or John O’Sullivan.

Feb 6, 2008 - 12:48 pm 13. mcg:

If this were simply about ideological purity then you’d have a point. After all, not one of our candidates on the right had a spotless conservative record by anyone’s measure. (Ask Ron Paul! Seriously, though, even Fred voted for McCain-Feingold).

But frankly it isn’t about ideological purity; it is about loyalty and teamwork. McCain doesn’t just disagree with his party on certain issues, he accuses those he disagrees with of bad faith—whether it is tax cuts for the rich, or bigots who want to deport 12 million illegals, or torture mongers who aren’t willing to grant full Geneva status to terrorists, etc. etc.

McCain is asking for loyalty to the party that he himself rarely shows.

Feb 6, 2008 - 12:49 pm 14. mcg:

If you want to sell out McCain because he doesn’t hate Mexicans enough, so be it,

McCainiac, you are the perfect disciple of John McCain. This is exactly what I am talking about in his previous post. Let’s be clear, sir: McCain has demonstrated this kind of contempt for people like me for years now. I’m supposed to reward him for that?

Feb 6, 2008 - 12:52 pm 15. Assistant Village Idiot:

John – Dead wrong, and you’re not listening. If you think that it will be the same under McCain or the Democrats, just a different name, then you are cherry-picking your data. ACU, ADA and other organizations have been rating for years, and have wildly different numbers for McCain vs. Democrats. A subset of conservatives do not get to define what conservatism is.

Hotpatch 6 “John McCain is an ill tempered, foul mouthed and nasty little man” to me that’s a feature, not a bug.

Feb 6, 2008 - 12:57 pm 16. Frank B:

I’m already sick of the twisted logic behind the, “He won, the majority spoke, so shut up!” line. A majority of Republicans voted for other candidates Tuesday. Conservatives split their votes, so another wing of the party won. That means I have to hang up my convictions? Sorry pal. It doesn’t work that way. I don’t loathe Johm McCain by any means; but if we can only nominate RINOs, why do we have a party at all?

Feb 6, 2008 - 1:04 pm 17. Edith L.:

Wow, Frank B., you are a purist. Last I heard McCain had a 83% conservative voting percentage. Bob Dole put him ahead of Jesse Helms… but none of this is enough for you. Glad we’re not married.

Feb 6, 2008 - 1:10 pm 18. McCain Voter:

Vic: If you want to win us over to McCain’s side then you better stop with the hissy fits and give us some solid arguments.

You guys are the ones throwing hissy fits.

McCain has a 79 percent approval rating on the right. You are the minority faction. You are outnumbered 4 to 1 among Republican voters.

You’re a major drag, and have always been the faction that makes us look like insufferable assholes to the rest of America.

If you want to boycott the election, fine. Do it. For every one of you there are two independents who like John McCain. You are not the base. You are the fringe.

You only sound like a majority on the Internet and in talk radio echo chambers. But the Internet isn’t America. The Daily Kossacks are learning that, too.

McCain wasn’t my first choice, either, by the way. Oh well. You can’t get everything you want in a democracy. I understood that when I was twelve.

Feb 6, 2008 - 1:26 pm 19. Mikey:

If you want a more conservative candidate then you have to be in the party and work to get those candidates put forward. Abandoning a political party because your demands are not met is a certain way to make sure that your demands will never be given consideration, let alone met even part way.

2006 was a good lesson for the Republicans, wasn’t it? Was it “You Republicans need to listen to us!” or was it “You Republicans can’t trust us, we’ll take our ball and go home if we don’t get our way!”?

American politics is designed to be a system of compromises, and if you cannot compromise, then you truly have no home anywhere in the system. (The US Constitution is the result of a series of compromises – it wasn’t handed down from on high complete.) The US Senate is a compromising body, especially when the political numbers are so close with a slim margin between the majority and the minority. In that case the presidency is key with the veto power.

McCain as a senator would act differently than McCain as a president. The jobs are too different to be otherwise. Not understanding that is to head into MoveOn territory.

Feb 6, 2008 - 1:28 pm 20. Ron J:

Some of you guys in the press just don’t get it, do you? First of all, there is a big difference between Republicans and Conservatives. Secondly, since when do the sheep have to meet the wolf half way? McCain has burned us, time and time again. Are we to forgive and forget? I don’t think so.

Feb 6, 2008 - 1:31 pm 21. McCainiac:

mcg– The contempt is mutual. And the thing is, you’re blowing up the party over something you’ll never get, anyway. Nobody is going to agree to chase ten million Mexicans home. It’ll never happen–they’re here, they’re necessary, they’re our neighbors. Romney talks a big load of nonsense that he knows he’ll never be held to, because even Congress knows better than to try axing ten million jobs (under the table or not) from the American economy.

You’ll never get what you want, so it’s entirely for show. But it’s a snazzy show, isn’t it?

Hope that last round of gerrymandering is as ironclad as you lot must think it is.

Feb 6, 2008 - 1:36 pm 22. arvid sather:

If I do not TRUST a candidate I will not vote for that candidate regardless
of party. I put the interest of our Nation before and interest of a Party.
Trying to Trust McCain is challenging
for me to say the least, while I can
not trust Clinton. I may have to vote for a third party candidate or pass for the first time in my life. I am
75 years.

Feb 6, 2008 - 1:38 pm 23. BMoon:

Roger, I know it is excruciatingly difficult to make a passionate argument for reasoned, objective moderation to our modern, pouting Barnburner Philistines, but can you somehow scream this message in their faces for six hours until their ears fall off? Make a recording of this editorial narrated by some screamo musician tearing his vocal chords out to penetrate the impenetrable coconuts of those that would chop their heads off to spite their faces? Is there anyway to make the blinkered Paulists, the Rushites, the Coulterese, to see that McCain is a gift in disguise, well within Republican Party tradition of electing moderates in the most dangerous of times? (Abe Lincoln and Teddy Roosevelt come to mind.) The radical abolitionists were right on many issues, but wrong on how to go about it. They needed Lincoln, who sympatized with them, yet were villified mercilessly by the same, because he simply understood politics and how to get something done. McCain will negotiate on all but one issue – he will not waver in the face of terrorism, and for that every American should be deeply thankful he is there, because if he were like the Dems on national defense, all the other issues become mere mirages.

Feb 6, 2008 - 1:56 pm 24. zman:

I have to say it has been quite an eye-opener for me to see the level of animus thrown against McCain. He wasn’t my first choice, but I am certainly going to vote for him. As far as Rush, Laura Ingraham, Levin,Coulter, my opinion of them certainly has changed. It will be some time before I look forward to hearing from them.

Feb 6, 2008 - 1:56 pm 25. mcg:

OK, I have to admit, McCainiac, you’re actually denser than your candidate.

First of all, when I said “this is exactly what I’m talking about”, I was referring to your mode of argumentation. People who objected to McCain’s immigration plan aren’t bigots who hate Mexicans, but McCain and his cronies like Lindsay Graham have no compunction whatsoever tarring us with such accusations. And that’s his M.O. on any issue where he disagrees with the base: we’re not just wrong, we’re a bunch of bigoted torturers.

Furthermore, who said it was all about immigration? That’s just one of many issues I and others have with the man. McCain-Feingold, tax cuts “for the rich”, embryonic stem cell research, immigration, Rudman’s judges, closing Guantanamo…

Feb 6, 2008 - 2:05 pm 26. John Lynch:

The way this primary played out, early open voter states, and several decent conservative candidates; the conservatives were divided and defeated in parts. The RNC has a candidate supported by moderates, not by conservatives. I hope they, the moderates and RNC, can figure out whom to turn to in order to get the rest of the votes they need. Within the electorate, is I recall, there are approx 30% lib, left, or Democrat; approx 30% right, conservative; and about 40% moderate and undecided – terms I think interchangeable with uncommitted. Odd that the majority of the old coalitions forming the GOP don’t support the front-runner – but there it is. I don’t think McCain got a majority (more than 50%) in any state, including his home state. Further, this on reduced Republican turnout.

Some conservatives will hold their nose and vote for him; some sit it out, some register protest. Unless there is something in events to come that can inspire them. Fear – of Hillary, is hardly inspiring. I would liken going to the polls to defeat Hillary to going to the dentist. You’ve got to do it, but it’s not your favorite thing. Hardly inspiring as a GOTV slogan.

As far as McCain being conservative – please – one every key initiative where conservatives rallied in the past 8 years, and were just having our voices heard, McCain brokered a deal, reaching across the aisle, and ceding our potential gains.

It felt like those Scottish tribesmen coming forth from their farms to fight the English, only to have a Scottish leader negotiating a land deal and title, dismissing the farmers back to their now worsened plights.

Feb 6, 2008 - 2:07 pm 27. LSD:

The illegal immigration issue is key. Firebrands are heated and looking for the candidates to get tough, but the reality is that there is nothing conservative about a focus on the illegal employees as opposed to going after the illegal
employers. One might argue that pressure on employers represents a more feasible and practical approach.

The fact is that until critical mass, this problem was not much of a problem for politicians on either side of the border and that the same sort of grass-roots pressure that was required to force the issue also fosters a certain amount of racist expression. There is no benefit to the GOP if this taint is put on it. Not only is the Latino bloc in play, but there are plenty of other voters who are put off by the scapegoat rhetoric. (Pete Wilson’s ‘brown tide’ comment comes to mind.)

The left has pressure from labor which forces movement on their side as well, but it appears that they have avoided the sort of language that will leave a racist flavor lingering in voters minds.

This problem needs to be addressed, but suggestions such as deporting so-called “anchor babies” are absurd in the extreme and the firebrands need to be quenched. At least Rush and the folks who are born to run things ought to understand how this one issue will help McCain and the Democrats.

Feb 6, 2008 - 2:12 pm 28. sjlippman:

Most people, including most republicans, are liberals. Those of us who are conservative usually vote republican, but not always. Anyone who labels himself “independent” is simply a liberal-in-waiting. Remember two things:
1. Those who believe in nothing will believe in anything.
2. Those not expressly right wing become left wing over time.
Independents, that means you.
John McCain is the type of republican of whom it will be said, by liberals, that he “has really grown in office.” That means simply that he has become more like them.
Believe me, all you independents out there, we have nothing to learn from John McCain. We’ve already learned all we need to know.
Soon we conservatives will be like the book people in Fahrenheit 451. But we are prepared for that. We will never vote for McCain.
Please understand that.

Feb 6, 2008 - 2:22 pm 29. M. Simon:

I think tax cuts for investors is a good idea.

Feb 6, 2008 - 2:27 pm 30. doustoi:

John McCain will not win the presidency (check the records of war hero senators who have run for president since JFK), so let’s not talk about conservatives committing political suicide by not voting. Conservatives need to put the Republican party and its go-along-to-get-along voters that if McCain is their choice, we will not support.

Feb 6, 2008 - 2:28 pm 31. Lem:

The prospect of becoming a ’suicide voter’ (voting for Hillary) dosent appeal to me.

I suppose I will give Mac a chance debating Hillary. He better clean her clock on the debates.

He better start sounding like he wants my vote.

Feb 6, 2008 - 2:29 pm 32. Gekkobear:

Can I learn how to use the power of Government to restrict the Constitutional right of U.S. Citizens?

Because that’s my general view of McCain, and he’s never backtracked that one.

First Amendment? Not with McCain in power you don’t.

His lawsuit in 2005 on the FEC to regulate the internet may go differently once he can select FEC Commissioners.

But hey, I’m not worried. I don’t write a blog, and although comments and e-mails might be targets (e-mails were listed in 2005) I’m sure everyone will be on my side then.

Odd that nobody remembers the fight in 2005. It wasn’t that long ago, was it?

Feb 6, 2008 - 2:36 pm 33. TheSnakeGuy:

McCain is going to meet us halfway? If he reverses himself on half his liberal positions I would be happy. I won’t be holding my breath though. How can you trust the guy to appoint supreme court justices when he things McCain-Feingold is something a strict constructionist would uphold?

Feb 6, 2008 - 2:36 pm 34. Bob:

“but mass deportations are not.”

Nice strawman. Name a single prominent conservative that actually wants to “round ‘em up” with mass deporatations? Not even Tanc advocates that. Attrition works(tm).

Feb 6, 2008 - 2:44 pm 35. garytheyoung:

I am a small government, low taxation, foreign policy hawk, originalist conservative and Rudy Giuliani was my candidate of choice (well, among those running). Why? Because after years of Rudy watching, I felt I could trust him when he pledged to put originalists on the Court and keep taxes low, spending at reasonable levels and not expand the welfare state while projecting maximum strength abroad. After years of McCain watching, I have no such confidence and find him untrustworthy in his assurances to conservatives.

Could I learn something from John McCain? Oh, undoubtedly. But, sorry, Senator McCain will have to come a-courting for my vote. And he will have to convince me that he is indeed a sincere suitor.

People like to remind conservatives that nothing in politics is pure and like the great Ronald Reagan, we too must learn the fine art of compromise. Well, tell us something we don’t already know, why doncha. We’ve been accepting compromise our entire lives. You can probably count purely conservative victories on the fingers of one hand. But, we have to continue to fight for our principles every step of the way lest the already mushy middle becomes altogether unsupportable. Hate us or love us as you will, you nevertheless need us.

Oh, and will I end up voting for McCain? Sadly, yeah. The alternative is just too horrible to contemplate.

Feb 6, 2008 - 3:00 pm 36. McCainiac:

[[Attrition works(tm).]]

Yup. Just look at the War on Drugs. This is even better because, as much as people like dope, they like money even more, so they’ll be even more likely to give up making it because you think it’s wrong to hire a Mexican. It’ll be great.

Feb 6, 2008 - 3:00 pm 37. Vic:

Andy McCarthy gives a very strong argument on why McCain is more likely to place liberal Supreme Court Justices than conservative ones. Bill Quick lists ten very good reasons on his site why he will not support McCain, some of which I was not even aware of.
People shout that he will be tough on terrorism then decline to state that he also wants to shut Gitmo, stop water boarding and give enemy combatants the same constitutional rights as citizens while at the same time refusing to secure our borders. His tough stance comes off as half-hearted.
The response to all of this is shut up and vote for him anyway, just look at his record (I am and it keeps getting worse) and last but not least, I must hate Mexicans. You McCain fanboys sure no how to make a persuasive argument so let me help you out abit. He has always been against earmarks. That should be a plus in anyone’s book.

Feb 6, 2008 - 3:04 pm 38. js:

mcains “nudge nudge wink wink”immigration policies will result in 50+million illegals in less than 10 years.hes already drunk from the “global warming” kool-aid.more taxes,and regulation on its way folks.hed rather attack the oil companies,than get our OWN oil from our OWN territory.and will he really be that tough in the war on terror?how many lives did the minimal use of water-boarding save?and,hell,hes said he wont even consider using that.yeah let the liberal party reap the rewards of those great liberal ideas,not us.

Feb 6, 2008 - 3:06 pm 39. homeboy:

Political parties are evil. Necessary because they are very effective at getting people elected, but they also force people to compromise. There are limits to how far a person should compromise before opting out. Looks to me as if McCain has done things that have caused a lot of Republicans to decide that they’ve reached that point. Whose fault is that?

Feb 6, 2008 - 3:09 pm 40. James:

Holy Moley,

Talk about talking to a brick wall. Roger makes, I would say, about 90 percent of a great point.

That is to say, if you really think “…battling McCain instead of Hillary” is really what you’d be facing, then you have already packed your lunch for 4 or perhaps 8 years in the wilderness. That’s 8 years of damage that Hillary will do to this country that will take generations to undo, if ever.

Grow up, wake up and suck it up.

Feb 6, 2008 - 3:16 pm 41. RE:

I dislike John McCain, so the way I have to deal with a distasteful McCain nomination is by telling myself I am casting my vote against blatant Socialism. Sure would be nice to vote ‘for’ something one day, though.

The GOP can forget about any donations however. It ain’t happening.

Feb 6, 2008 - 3:21 pm 42. JC:

You are without intellect. The democrats did not get their heads handed to them you freaking dolt.

They won both houses in a crushing victory.

You are entitled to your dumbass opinions, but when you get facts like that wrong you prove your opinions have no merit. You are too stupid to comprehend basic logic.

You are beyond foolish. You sir are retarded.

Q: In what ways did they get their heads handed to them?

A: Absolutely none. Anyone with a 3rd grade intellect or higher could comprehend that.

Feb 6, 2008 - 3:25 pm 43. william:

if i want to vote for a liberal i could vote for hillary.but mccain no way this man is a scumbag phony and if he had a brain they would be caught for smuggling shit.

Feb 6, 2008 - 3:31 pm 44. ricg:

Frank B,

He’s not my ideal choice either, but you’re asking the wrong question. We don’t only nominate RINOs, so the question is, if we don’t support our nominee (even when the nominee is from a different wing), why do we have a party?

The fact is, America is going to gradually leave Iraq. If a Dem does it, it will be reckless and based on partisan interests (as that Party’s whole Iraq policy has been) and branded as correcting an error committed because of deception.

If McCain does it, it will (hopefully) be measured and labelled an ultimately successful removal of a perceived threat, at least by the branch of government responsible for prosecuting future military actions. That is important, because the remaining bad actors in the region need to understand we have a leader who will credibly maintain the resolve to take any action when it is perceived to be necessary, a resolve that, whatever G. Bush’s failures, he has, to his credit, steadfastly maintained.

And maintenance of that resolve has come at a cost. My brother-in-law was killed in Iraq to demonstrate that resolve and make creditible future threats of action. If you’re considering sitting out this election, I’d ask you to think about those, who like my sister, her four children, and her in-laws, and many families like them, have sacrificed children, siblings, parents and spouses to keep US foreign policy credibly options open, ultimately allowing us to protect this country at lesser cost in the future — unless we squander it. Don’t let this resolve, built-up at such high cost, be squandered by the party of surrender so it can pander to its wobbly base for political advantage.

Nobody is asking anyone to give up his or her principles, but we should all think long and hard about what electing a Democrat will do to the credibility of any future threat of a use of force by US, the only democracy militarily capable of doing so. Sometimes the flexibility to make such a threat credibly saves the cost in money and treasure of having to carry it out.

Feb 6, 2008 - 3:33 pm 45. dougf:

‘Real’ conservatives should perhaps understand something.

There are quite of few people to whom the War trumps everything.

Not you obviously, but many.

And because of that they are willing to put up with your childish, self-destructive purity campaigns. They even go so far as to try to warn you that you are approaching the cliffs of despair at almost warp speed, and suggest that perhaps an historical review of where precisely your ‘movement’ is at this point might be in order.

Your response — We don’t listen to or support heretics. Be gone and take your RINOs with you. We be fine.

At this point, I have concluded it’s not worth the effort. Sit on your hands. Bask in your righteousness. Talk amongst yourselves.

Your day is done. The ‘movement’ is dying. You can’t see that because you don’t want to see that. But others see it all too clearly. Even some ‘real’ conservatives. Reagan who you profess to idolize, would be able to see that. McCain is merely a symptom of the bigger problem; he is not THE problem itself.

You want to see where you are going as a political force ? Where your final destination must invariably be given your ‘druthers’.

Look at California and the Republican Party there. A rump force that is pushed around at will and is the butt of jokes, because it represents about 40% of the population base on a good day. And it gets less viable with each passing year.

But it’s PURE.

Gimme an amen.

Feb 6, 2008 - 3:37 pm 46. BD:

I just love the argument …

“you conservatives are a fringe, you’re a minority, you’re not necessary, you’re bigots and torturers …. oh, by the way, remember to vote McCain!!!! Or else!!!!!”

If everyone has a right to their opinion, then those who have significant reservations about McCain because of BCRA, because of oppositions to tax cuts “for the wealthy”, because they were called bigots for opposing McCain’s immigration bill, because they thought the bill was a horrible idea and were offended by the way McCain, et al. tried to ram it through the Senate before constituents had a real opportunity to be heard, because they ’support torture’ for believing it’s a bad idea to give the boys at Gitmo POW status, because they don’t consider waterboarding ‘torture’, because they don’t think ‘global warming’ deserves the sort of economy-dragging fees & taxes McCain proposes HAVE A RIGHT TO WITHHOLD THEIR VOTE FROM JOHN McCAIN.

Now, I agree that calling McCain a “liberal” is too strong – and it isn’t productive.

At the same time, he is so spectacularly wrong on so many VERY SIGNIFICANT issues that I can’t support him.

BTW – that doesn’t mean he won’t get my vote in November, just that, if he does, it’ll be a vote against the Democrat, not a vote for McCain.

No one ‘owes’ McCain their vote. McCain has issues of his own making with a block of self-described conservatives – - – we’ll find out if they’re ’significant’ in November.

But know this – if McCain loses because he’s alienated enough conservatives to cost him the election, IT WON’T BE THE FAULT OF THE CONSERVATIVES.

It’s a poor musician who blames his instrument, and a poor politician who blames the voters.

Feb 6, 2008 - 3:44 pm 47. Nelson:

Here’s the deal. Many people think there is a better way of handling immigration than treating Mexicans like dirt. This means opening up more legal means of entry.

Anti-immigrationists view the issue as a enforce the law issue. Pro-immigrationists view the issue as a change the law issue.

Guess what? Neither position is illegal nor is either position anti-American. Surely those that believe laws should be enforced would prefer laws to be changed rather than ignored. Therefore McCain’s position is consistent with belief in the rule of law.

Now if you think increased immigration and a plan to let foreigners have legitimate access to our economy is bad you are free to maintain that position. But none of the candidates will please you on this issue so you have a choice to either not vote or to vote for the person that agrees with you on the other issues. Do the other issues matter to you?

Feb 6, 2008 - 3:47 pm 48. Mikey:

JC: Moving from a large minority to a slim majority is not a ‘crushing’ victory. What exactly is the majority in the Senate these days?

ricg: My brother is an army officer and her supports McCain because he won’t left out to dry.

dougf: The conservative movement isn’t done, it just has to remember that it is a part of the American polity. If it wishes to divorce itself from that then it gains perfect irrelevance in its perfect isolation.

BD: I agree, Republican voters have spoken, and have picked their (likely) candidate. It would be very poor form indeed to blame the voters for the poor showing of more conservative candidates. Perhaps next time there will be fewer conservative candidates so that bloc can coalesce around just one earlier.

Unless the myriad of conservative candidates means that conservatism is not a unified bloc but instead made up out of many different disparate groups. If that is the case, each of these conservative groups will have to compromise something in order to coalesce around a candidate.

Feb 6, 2008 - 4:29 pm 49. marinetbryant:

If McCain wants to claim he is best for the war on terror due to his military record then ask him to unseal those records. But, like Kerry, no how, no way. What are hiding John?

Tom

Feb 6, 2008 - 4:36 pm 50. alle:

You know what’s really interesting? So many people are saying “McCain is nasty and hot tempered.”

But George Bush is neither of those things, and they hate him for being “too nice.”

I think you’re right. There is no pleasing them.

Feb 6, 2008 - 4:42 pm 51. Andrew:

Some of us put our country ahead of our party. Some of us believe the rule of law matters. Despising the rule of law is for those for whom democracy is unimportant.

Some of us understand that destoying this country’s economy with draconian policies driven by lies about imminent global catastrophe from CO2 are wrong.

Some of us understand there should be differences between the political parties, and Americans should have a choice.

Some of us understand that giving the priviledges of American citizenship to those whose goals are genocide of Americans is a really bad idea. Along with the idea that the Terrorist Trail from the Middle East to Central American, to Mexico and an open border should be shut down.

But to those who support McCain and his malignant hatred for us small government, pro-America types, all we get is “you hate Mexicans!”.

McCain’s supporters here are just despicable.

Feb 6, 2008 - 4:53 pm 52. amr:

I originally supported Mr. Giuliani. I am concerned during this election cycle primarily about the war against the Islamists and want someone who has been tested. Social issues are not that important when your country is at risk. I have firmly believed that the borders needed to be controlled for decades and that they definitely need to be controlled now. While Mr. McCain supported fighting on the Islamists turf, he seemly didn’t believe that our country’s borders, which directly impact our security, were not important in this war. I strongly disagree. We really don’t need an actual 5th column in our country; the anti-war Left/Democrats are enough.

Mr. McCain reportedly has a vicious temper and is very vindictive; not characteristics I want in a leader. We have had enough of that in past administrations. So I did not, and still do not support his run for the presidency. However I am not suicidal, so I will vote for him if he is the Republican nominee.

The lack of experience of Mr. Obama and Mrs. Clinton frightens me. I remember the failings of President Kennedy and the perception of weakness that led to the Cuban Missile Crisis and his experience level in national service and the military was more than Mr. Obama and Mrs. Clinton combined. If the more knowledgeable Soviets misjudged President Kennedy, just think what the Islamists will think of either Mr. Obama or Mrs. Clinton as commander-in-chief; and what actions will our present enemies take to test those who are untested in the national security arena. For that reason I want a strong horse in the presidency.

Feb 6, 2008 - 5:10 pm 53. actor212:

Had. Their. Heads. Handed?

Dude, they won the House and Senate in 2006!

Roger Hell, no wonder you can’t get a deal in Hollywood!

Feb 6, 2008 - 5:37 pm 54. Mikey:

Some of us love our country too, Andrew. My brother has been to Afghanistan and Iraq. He supports McCain.

Why? He doesn’t believe McCain will hang him and his comrades in arms out to dry. That’s plenty good enough for me.

Feb 6, 2008 - 5:45 pm 55. karen schell:

dougf :
“Your day is done. The ‘movement’ is dying.”

LOL, yes – that’s why the elite GOP establishment and it’s candidate are in massive panic mode, begging for any support they can hope against hope to get.

It’ll sure be interesting watching the unstoppable force that is McCain overwhelm America and just ease on to the Presidency this November based on his campaign slogan of “Please, please hold your nose, clutch your stomach, just please vote for him! PLEASE!!”. You’re right! _That is_ inspirational and will most certainly vanquish them thar evil “purists”! Good plan.

Feb 6, 2008 - 5:50 pm 56. geoff:

Across much of the country, the man advertising himself as the perfect conservative ran a poor third to a “maverick” Republican and a Southern populist.

That’s not a very fair characterization:

Alabama: 3rd
Alaska: 1st
Arkansas: 3rd
Arizona: 2nd
California: 2nd
Colorado: 1st
Connecticut: 2nd
Delaware: 2nd
Georgia: close 3rd (McC: 34%; Huck: 32%; Rom: 30%)
Illinois: 2nd
Massachusetts: 1st
Minnesota: 1st
Missouri: close 3rd (McC: 33%; Huck: 32%; Rom: 29%)
Montana: 1st
North Dakota: 1st
New Jersey: 2nd
New York: 2nd
Oklahoma: 3rd
Tennessee: 3rd
Utah: 1st
West VA: 2nd

So he took 3rd in 6 out of 21 states, and in two of those contests he was within 4% of the winner. In the other four, he was within 12% in OK, and 10% in TN, though he did get hammered in AL and AR (duh).

So did he really show a “poor 3rd” across “much of the country?” Or did he just show a “poor 3rd” in 2 out of 21 states?

Feb 6, 2008 - 5:53 pm 57. Thucydides:

I can understand the vitriol that many conservatives have for John McCain on everything but immigration policy. McCain has not been a loyal party soldier the last 8 years. He voted against the Bush tax cuts, spoke out against waterboarding of detainees, and despite his support on the war blasted Rumsfeld. Thus, to many conservatives, why should they fall in line now, when McCain rebelled against the party? It’s a tad hypocritical, and McCain should realize that. Good leaders lead by example, so if McCain wants conservatives to fall in line, he needs to do so as well.
That said, on some of these issues, it’s time conservatives acknowledge McCain was right. Rumsfeld was doing a poor job as secretary of defense and should have been replaced long before Nov 2006. McCain was absolutely correct about the earmarks and the run away Federal spending. Finally, McCain is dead on in regards to immigration. I also find it curious that the great Ronald Reagan was responsible for the largest amnesty, and yet conservatives ignore that fact.
McCain was not my first choice, Thompson was. With Thompson out, I picked McCain over the faux conservative Romney and the Republican version of William Jennings Bryan Huckabee.
On a whole, I am willing to give McCain the benefit of the doubt on judges. Any man that voted for Bork is most likely going to nominate strict constructionist judges. If he prefers judges like Roberts over Alito, then I see that as a preference for a SCOTUS judge who is a minimalist rather that a judge who will show less deference to the legislative branch. Besides, when you compare what a democratic president would nominate (Ginsburg?), how can you not want McCain as president?
I think conservatives need to be careful. If Rush and his cohorts want to purify the party, so be it. Just remember what happened to the Whig party with the Barn burners. Also, if conservative demand a litmus test on immigration, then they are basically becoming Know Nothings.
I think a McCain presidency offers a strong commander in chief, who will rebuild our over taxed military, a deficit-hawk, a iron willed statesman, and potentially a president who embraces a supply side economics (McCain has talked about dramatically cutting the corporate tax rate and the capital gains tax). That’s a very solid portfolio, and a very conservative one in my book. That’s something to get excited about.

Feb 6, 2008 - 6:22 pm 58. Roy Mustang:

RWillis:
“The (R) behind his name doesn’t mean he’s a republican”

McCain is Moderate Republican. You’re a very intellecutally dishonet person, RWillis.

Feb 6, 2008 - 6:45 pm 59. John Lynch:

The discussion above, if that’s what you can call it, is interesting.

To me, it seems as if the coalition of the various conservative groups including defense, economic, legal, libertarian, religious, and social — which each have different interests, but share small government principles, have always welcomed moderates – and evangelicals. While conservatives don’t agree with their mushiness on core principles, they welcome them and work with their policy objectives, at least where they don’t conflict with conservative core principles. Sometimes, unfortunately, even then.

Now it seems moderates are in the driver’s seat of the Republican Party. Good for them. They got it fair and square. I think it largely an accident of circumstance, not a particular weakness of conservative commitment, but here we are.

The moderates seem less welcoming to their coalition partners than the conservatives were of them. They call conservatives purists, demean their goals, deride their objectives and tell them to suck it up – an interesting approach to coalition building.

I’m not sure they even understand the principles that conservatives hold dear. That might be why they are moderates to begin with – a lack of understanding of the principles involved. However they got their attitude, one thing is clear – they don’t understand being in the driver’s seat, don’t understand that they now need to build a coalition, and don’t have a clue that berating someone does not endear them to anyone’s position.

A good beginning, if one is desired, is some indication that conservative principles are understood. They do not have to be agreed to, as conservatives did not agree to moderate’s principles, but they should be understood. Then respect for those positions, then if a coalition is desired, some commitment to working together to achieve both moderate and conservative goals.

I think most of this unlikely, as I do not see enough inspiration capable of uniting the various groups, as they have been in the past, but: who knows?

Feb 6, 2008 - 7:01 pm 60. Joey:

Small Government Republicans??? Where have you been the past 8 years. Clinton and H.W. were small government more than our current sorry excuse for a conservative president.

Feb 6, 2008 - 7:15 pm 61. dougf:

The moderates seem less welcoming to their coalition partners than the conservatives were of them.

Well maybe. But as I recall events all this moderate ‘blow-back’, started AFTER many ‘real’ conservatives made a big point of saying that they would NEVER support McCain. And one has now gone so far as to publicly endorse Hillary or Obama in preference. And that type of behavior is an example of trying to “work with their policy objectives, at least where they don’t conflict with conservative core principles. Sometimes, unfortunately, even then”?

Now you might say that this type of behavior is ‘welcoming’ and ‘reasonable’. But frankly I have somewhat different adjectives in mind for it. Especially after watching Hannity’s holier-than-thou sanctimonious drivel tonight on Fox.
As if he is the only principled man in America. Sean Hannity. The mind boggles.

Blaming the ‘victims’ for the quite predictable reactions seems a bit odd here. Almost kind of ‘liberal’.

Feb 6, 2008 - 7:23 pm 62. John Lynch:

Joey,
GWB is hardly a conservative. This compassionate conservatism appears a cover for larger government, although 460,000 TSA workers is a big part of bigger government and not directly GWBs doing, but clearly the Medicare expansion to drug benefits, the increases in education spending, and general lack of control over pork spending are all abhorent to conservatives.

GWB is an example of conservatives compromising, but at least GWB had some understanding of the principles. McCain might as well, and gives them the one-finger salute every chance he can.

Both GWB and McCain have a defense position clearly in line with conservative principles.

dougf:
Having moderates in the party and pursuing moderate policies as a part of the coalition is not the same as putting a moderate, and occasional hostile to conservatives, person at the top of the ticket.

Moderates are hardly the victims here. You’ve voted someone as our party’s presumptive. Now deal with it – find him some support.

Feb 6, 2008 - 7:54 pm 63. kpeyser:

You are right to vote for the Democratic Presidential Candidate whoever it is this November.

Senator Obama will make peace in the middle east by immediately withdrawing all American militarty from the Middle and meeting with the Muslim leaders in the Middle East and reach out to Iran.

Likewise Hillary Clinton will remove all U.S. military from the Middle East and reduce the defense budget by 35% saving tax payers money and reducing the huge budget surplus.

Please continue to let people know that McCains’ ways in the Middle East are wrong and evil.

Vote Democratic in the fall!

Feb 6, 2008 - 8:29 pm 64. capsela:

Excellent post Mr. Simon! My sentiments exactly.

The purists need a dose of pragmatism.

I grew tired of Rush always bashing McCain when he refused to support any other candidate.

He seemed to turn the other cheek on todays broadcast. He didn’t bash McCain once. I think we’ll see him support McCain in the future.

I think the purists will realize a bird in the hand is better than two on the bush.

Feb 6, 2008 - 8:47 pm 65. Beth:

Hotpatch 6 :

John McCain is an ill tempered, foul mouthed and nasty little man

Now that there is funny.

Irony, thy name is Hotpatch.

Feb 6, 2008 - 8:56 pm 66. Ken Mitchell:

I think that whether or not I can hold my nose long enough to vote for McCain will STRONGLY depend on his running mate. Not being a big fan of him gutting the First Amendment (McCain/Finegold) but strongly supporting his military initiatives, I have decidedly mixed feelings about him.

McCain/Thompson I could support in a heartbeat. Preacher/Populist Huckabee, not so much. Romney? That would be a crap-shoot; he’s been on both sides of every issue.

Feb 6, 2008 - 9:23 pm 67. alle:

McCain/Thompson will never happen. Two old white men who both had cancer is not a reassuring ticket.

Feb 6, 2008 - 9:25 pm 68. scott:

“Speaking bluntly, it may be that the search for ideological purity anywhere on the political spectrum is a fool’s game (unless you’re trying to sell books or drive ratings).”

Great point.

Feb 6, 2008 - 10:37 pm 69. Robert:

As a conservative Republican living in Arizona, I will not vote for McCain in November. I didn’t vote for him the last time he ran for the Senate. McCain pushers are constantly missing the point. I don’t demand ideological purity. But I can’t vote for someone who decided out of spite to join up with Ted Kennedy and other libs in the Senate to stab conservatives in the back just because he was angry about losing to Bush in 2000. That is a dangerous character flaw.

Feb 6, 2008 - 10:42 pm 70. H. Galbraith:

This is exactly what I sent to Rush today on his e-mail. We must work together to save this nation. thank you for your words!

Feb 7, 2008 - 4:11 am 71. Fred Beloit:

Roger, by your own admission, you are an independent. (Are you?) So naturally you don’t get it. But if you will go here: http://ace.mu.nu/
and scroll down to “Thoughts on McCain” you will get it. Ace has done a marvelous job of explaining how conservatives feel about McC. and why. Condemn no longer as the truth is revealed.

Feb 7, 2008 - 4:21 am 72. Jody:

I cannot understand why conservatives must “learn” something from McCain.

McCain has turned his back on them on countless occasions in the last many years, championing illegal immigration, helping the obstruction of Bush’s judicial nominations and the list goes on.

If McCain won’t obviously despises conservatives, why should they accommodate him?

And by the way, he didn’t “clean their clocks” on Super Tuesday.

Feb 7, 2008 - 5:10 am 73. Jody:

I cannot understand why conservatives must “learn” something from McCain.

McCain has turned his back on them on countless occasions in the last many years, championing illegal immigration, helping the obstruction of Bush’s judicial nominations and the list goes on.

If McCain won’t obviously despises conservatives, why should they accommodate him?

And by the way, he didn’t “clean their clocks” on Super Tuesday.

Feb 7, 2008 - 5:15 am 74. dougf:

Having moderates in the party and pursuing moderate policies as a part of the coalition is not the same as putting a moderate, and occasional hostile to conservatives, person at the top of the ticket,–JL

Oh I see. Well at least now things are clearer.

Those ‘moderates’(ptui) who might pursue or advocate ‘moderate’(ptui) policies are just fine and dandy in the Big Tent ‘conservative’ Party.

As long as they don’t get uppity . Nothing more annoying than some ‘moderate’ who don’t know his/her place. And besides, we like our ‘moderates’. They have it good with us and we take real good care of them. Why we even let them say something every once in a while without calling them RINOs(a term of affection), and for a treat sometimes we let them have their way on some small policy( long as it don’t conflict with ‘real’ conservatism). What more could they want?

It’s just when they get uppity that things get messed up.

Yes,it’s all very clear to me now.

Feb 7, 2008 - 6:54 am 75. John Lynch:

dougf,

No, Moderates have to sell their positions when they are against conservative positions; further, when they lead – they have to inspire those they want to follow.

By taking the top of the ticket, you take the lead. Try it – you’ll love being the reciever of all the shots instead of the sender.

As I see it, there are maybe 60M conservatives. Between 25 and 35M reliably vote, and when they vote they vote Republican. There are maybe 80M independants, moderates and uncommitted. Between 10M and 30M reliably vote, and when they vote they split between parties.

The Moderates got the candidate they want for the GOP. We’ll need maybe 70M votes to win the general. two-thirds of the primary voters voted against McCain.

This is problematic.

Feb 7, 2008 - 8:17 am 76. John Lynch:

dougf,

No, Moderates have to sell their positions when they are against conservative positions; further, when they lead – they have to inspire those they want to follow.

By taking the top of the ticket, you take the lead. Try it – you’ll love being the reciever of all the shots instead of the sender.

As I see it, there are maybe 60M conservatives. Between 25 and 35M reliably vote, and when they vote they vote Republican. There are maybe 80M independants, moderates and uncommitted. Between 10M and 30M reliably vote, and when they vote they split between parties.

The Moderates got the candidate they want for the GOP. We’ll need maybe 70M votes to win the general. two-thirds of the primary voters voted against McCain.

This is problematic.

Feb 7, 2008 - 8:20 am 77. dclydew:

I am an independent and I would like to correct some bullsh*t spewed earlier by sjlippman :

Anyone who labels himself “independent” is simply a liberal-in-waiting. Remember two things:
1. Those who believe in nothing will believe in anything.
2. Those not expressly right wing become left wing over time.
Independents, that means you.

sjlippman, your argument is foolishly flawed. You make several errors in logic, debate and overall sense.

Those who believe in nothing will believe in anything.

Those not expressly right wing become left wing over time.

Neither of these statements have any basis in reality and must have sprung, I can only assume, full formed from you head like Zeus, or perhaps got spewed at you by a pundit and you lack the skills to actually use your brain, thus parroting whatever you heard. I’m not sure which it is in this case.

I am independent BECAUSE neither party has proven, or even indicated that they have my interests at heart. The official Democratic party is corrupt, appears to support the idea of a nanny state and doesn’t seem to understand the real danger of our current enemies. The Republicans appear equally corrupt, seem to support the idea of laws based on metaphysics, rather than sense and actual observable evidence and seem unable to admit when they make mistakes. I want nothing to do with either party, not because I believe in nothing… but because neither party deserves my support.

You seem like a pathetic fool, unable to see beyond your own bloated and sickly ego.

Feb 7, 2008 - 8:39 am 78. dougf:

This is problematic.

Well the problematic part is true, but not really the main point. That is a result of a problem not the problem itself. I fear that your 2/3rds analysis of the anti-McCain results is perhaps in error. Huckabee’s evangelical supporters LIKE McCain according to more than one poll result. They merely voted FOR Huckabee but not AGAINST McCain. So that 2/3rds you mention really becomes 1/3 at best.

If McCain loses, especially if he picks Huckabee as I want him to do, everyone will have a very good idea of who to blame for the defeat. Hint — It won’t be McCain or Huckabee.

Huckabee’s supporters surely will know precisely who to blame for sinking their candidate, especially if he decides to make an issue out of it. I would. In a NY minute as they say. Misery loving company and all. If I am going down, I be taking someone with me. In a ‘nice’ manner of course but dragging them along, nonetheless.

So no glorious rebuilding of that ‘conservative’ coalition for you I fear. Just ‘real’ conservatives on the sidewalk staring in to the Democratic Restaurant wondering why they can’t get served. EVER. Oh and why the passing evangelicals are still giving them some hard stares.

But on the upside, you probably won’t have to worry about that annoying ‘purity’ thingy anymore. So that’s a good thing, I guess.

Feb 7, 2008 - 8:41 am 79. dougf:

This is problematic.

Well the problematic part is true, but not really the main point. That is a result of a problem not the problem itself. I fear that your 2/3rds analysis of the anti-McCain results is perhaps in error. Huckabee’s evangelical supporters LIKE McCain according to more than one poll result. They merely voted FOR Huckabee but not AGAINST McCain. So that 2/3rds you mention really becomes 1/3 at best.

If McCain loses, especially if he picks Huckabee as I want him to do, everyone will have a very good idea of who to blame for the defeat. Hint — It won’t be McCain or Huckabee.

Huckabee’s supporters surely will know precisely who to blame for sinking their candidate, especially if he decides to make an issue out of it. I would. In a NY minute as they say. Misery loving company and all. If I am going down, I be taking someone with me. In a ‘nice’ manner of course but dragging them along, nonetheless.

So no glorious rebuilding of that ‘conservative’ coalition for you I fear. Just ‘real’ conservatives on the sidewalk staring in to the Democratic Restaurant wondering why they can’t get served. EVER. Oh and why the passing evangelicals are still giving them some hard stares.

But on the upside, you probably won’t have to worry about that annoying ‘purity’ thingy anymore. So that’s a good thing, I guess.

Feb 7, 2008 - 9:16 am 80. JerryO:

Whatever.

The only way this general election LOSER got in was by colluding to dillute the conservative vote. McDipstick would havce lost soundly if not for his deceptive back room deal with The crookster. Conservative? What a joke. You keep telling us we need to sell ourselves out and see it more moderately like you but it isn’t going to happen. He’s is going to lose not because of us but because you dolts continue to believe the press leading you by the nose and laughing all the way. Don’t blame us because its your very poor choice of a candidate who can’t even get half his own base. I’m not changing for him or anyone. You wanted him you got him. Now live with him and don’t whine to us that boo hoo he needs our support.

Feb 7, 2008 - 9:55 am 81. Barbula:

This arguing is enlightening, though otherwise moot.

McCain will be crushed this Fall, regardless of whether conservatives fall into line or not.

What benefit is there to conservatives, then? Let McCain get crushed, and let the moderates, RINO’s, “independents”, and Neo-cons take the rightful blame.

Because any way about it, ready or not, the troops will be home in 2009 – and you will have McCain to thank for that.

Feb 7, 2008 - 10:08 am 82. Terrye:

I think Roger makes a lot of sense. I also think that a lot of people on the right are acting like whiney cry babies threatening to take their marbles and go home.

So McCarthy thinks McCain would support liberal judges? Not only is that nonsense, it begs the question: What kind of judges would Obama or Hillary support. In fact last night on Fox I saw Ted Olson talking about the gang of 14 was a good thing that got conservatives judges confirmed. Ted has been a darling of the right for years, but I guess now that he has said something good about McCain and judges they will have to say nasty things about him and come up with some juvenile play on his name, and insult his integrity. They are after all spoiled children.

For the last three years the right has had a fit every couple of weeks over something. They have worked with Democrats to undermine Bush, because he was not good enough for them and now it seems many of them are willing to work with and for the Democrats to undermine McCain.

With friends like Rush and Laura etc, the GOP does not need enemies.

Feb 7, 2008 - 10:59 am 83. John Lynch:

dougf,

Thanks for the discourse.

I’m thinking rebuilding the grand coalition isn’t that important. It’s a source of votes, but it has led to so many compromises and poor candidates and muddy policy that objective observers can say it hasn’t helped conservatives much over the past 15 years or so.

Just keeping track of the needs of libertarians and lawyers in the same issue gives most a headache. Never mind all of the other groups that coalesced around the vague label of conservative.

If anyone has a vision that can reunite them toward some common goal, great – let’s go. If not, then let them splinter and some other coalition of 70M voters can take over. I think the point is that coalitions are hard to maintain, especially if the leaders of the party don’t care.

Conservatives have their positions. They are quite willing to compromise, as they have for longer than you’ve been politically active. But, I doubt they’re going to give up on their convictions because you think they somehow owe you.

Almost all of them will vote Republican this time around, as they always have. I just don’t expect them to be excited, and therefore turnout will be on the low end. Some will give up, some will protest.

You can p-off with threats of being out in the wilderness; we’ve been there for years.

Purity?! pah.

Feb 7, 2008 - 11:35 am 84. Mike Reynolds:

I’m a moderate Democrat–an extreme centrist, if you will. I still lean somewhat towards Hillary, but that could change. Though if–as I prognosticate–Obama will be the nominee, then I’d *certainly* vote for McCain over him.

Feb 7, 2008 - 1:40 pm 85. John the Dennis Miller Libertarian:

I’m a former Thompson supporter, whoops, Romney supporter, whoops, hey, I really liked Coburn’s CPAC speech. Sent enjoyable willies down my principled backbone.

The primaries are precisely the time for all of this rancor. It’s the time in the process for our voices to be heard. Today we move to the next phase.

Romney made a selfless, impressive and classy move today. By giving the Republicans a healthy head start in the general, he demonstrated his business acumen for recognizing a strong tactical advantage. Now look at the Democrats. Do you really think Hillary will concede in so timely and graceful a manner? Perhaps the Democrats are destined to be the party of the brokered, fractured kingmaker convention. I’ll take that advantage any day.

Feb 7, 2008 - 4:35 pm 86. marinetbryant:

This is what’s wrong with this picture. Each time a Republican or conservative abandoned their principles to keep the power for themselves and away from the Dems they lost those principles forever. Kinda like a temporary tax you vote for it now but guess what, you’ll never get that tax back.

Tom

Feb 7, 2008 - 5:32 pm 87. Mark Stewart:

Those who would sacrifice liberty to gain a little security deserve neither liberty nor security.

READ:

1. BCRA (McCain-Feingold)
2. Amnesty for Illegals

McCain a defender of America? Hardly.

He’s an enemy.

He violates his oath of office.

The Democrats will fight al Qaeda, too, though not as well.

I will not vote for a socialist RINO because I am supposed to be scared silly of barbaric religious freaks in the funny farm of the Middle East. AQ is disturbing, but so is the bankrupting of America by vote-buying socialism and the trampling of the Constitution by career incumbents afraid of a free press.

As far as McCain’s service in the Navy, I remind people, only after McCain attacked our Constitution with the BCRA, that Benedict Arnold had an outstanding service record as well, prior to his betrayal of our fledging America.

You should have paid attention in November 2006. My guess is they’ll be dancing the Macarena next January.

Feb 7, 2008 - 5:52 pm 88. John the Dennis Miller Libertarian:

Mark Stewart,

to call McCain an enemy and a Benedict Arnold is disingenuous hyperbole. It tells people to dismiss you because you’re not a serious person.

Feb 7, 2008 - 9:52 pm 89. chiefpayne:

Bovine Excrement! I have seen LITTLE to cause me to vote for John McCain and a LOT to prevent me from doing so. And for you McCainites out there, if you think McCain will win without the conservative base, you are sadly mistaken.

Frankly, I hope Ron Paul runs on the Constitutional party ticket. I think he’d get a LOT more votes than you think he would.

After all, if all you have to vote for is a liberal in each party, why bother to vote at all?

Feb 8, 2008 - 11:34 am 90. Steve:

I’m voting this November, but the president part will be left blank. Which in Florida is a vote algore I believe………

Feb 10, 2008 - 8:46 pm

Write a Comment

Name:	(required, displayed)
Email:	(required, not publicized)
URL:	(optional, displayed)
Comments: